We interrupt our regular coverage for a point of personal privilege…

Last week, I received a few concerned e-mails from readers noticing our interrupted coverage Tuesday the 1st and Wednesday the 2nd and wondering what was up.  My partner and webmaster, John Passaniti, suddenly received word that Tuesday was his final day at his job-that-pays-real-money.  Needless to say this came as a surprise, and not a welcome one during the upcoming holiday season, especially in today’s economy.

For our Rochester-area readers employed in the tech sector, you can do me a great favor and consider passing along John’s resume and/or communicating with him directly about potential leads.  Getting him re-employed helps keep me focused and in a writing mood, which is good news for readers and bad news for Internet Overchargers.  It’s a way readers in my hometown can help return the favor of the work being done to keep overcharging schemes at bay.

John writes:

I am a software engineer with 22 years of experience in embedded systems.  Most of that work has been in industries related to audio and telecommunications (electronic musical instruments; professional, commercial, and home theater audio; enterprise and embedded Ethernet switching products), but I also have experience in web technologies and software project management.  I am most interested in embedded systems work in or near the industries I’ve previously been in, but I am open to evaluating any job opportunity where I can apply my wide range of skills.  My resume is available online.  I would appreciate readers who know of job opportunities for experienced software engineers to review my resume and contact me directly.

Thanks to everyone for letting me break into our regular coverage for a moment to discuss a more personal matter.

Kyle McSlarrow

Once again, the telecommunications industry is threatening to run to the courts if it faces Net Neutrality regulation, claiming their corporate freedom of speech would be violated by protecting the rights of consumers to access the content of their choice on their terms.

Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s big cable operator trade association, delivered the warning at yesterday’s appearance at the Media Institute in Washington, DC.

In a speech clearly designed to put regulators on notice, McSlarrow dismissed Net Neutrality as a solution in search of a problem and a concept big cable would likely challenge in the courts.

“When all the dire warnings of the net neutrality proponents are stripped away, there really are no signs of actual harm.  Yes, there have been a couple of isolated incidents that keep being held up as examples of what needs to be prevented, but nothing that suggests any threat to the openness of the Internet,” McSlarrow said. “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”

McSlarrow told the audience that the cable industry would be among the victims of Net Neutrality, claiming their rights to transact business on their networks could be trampled by an overzealous Federal Communications Commission.

Almost every net neutrality proposal would seek to control how an ISP affects the delivery of Internet content or applications as it reaches its customers.   This is particularly odd for two reasons:  First, there is plenty of case law about instances of speech compelled by the government – “forced speech” — that suggests such rules should be scrutinized closely. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is an almost completely unnecessary risk.  All ISPs have stated repeatedly that they will not block their customers from accessing any lawful content or application on the Internet.  Competitive pressures alone ensure this result:  we are in the business of maximizing our customers’ choices and experiences on the Internet.  The counter examples used to debate this point are so few and so distinguishable as to make the point for me.

Beyond the forced speech First Amendment implications, however, net neutrality rules also could infringe First Amendment rights because they could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service.  While the FCC’s NPRM acknowledges the need to carve out “managed” or “specialized” services from the scope of any new rules, it also expresses concerns that “the growth of managed or specialized services might supplant or otherwise negatively affect the open Internet.”   Meaning what?  Well, the strong implication is some kind of guaranteed amount of bandwidth capacity for services the government deems important.

McSlarrow is focused front and center on the rights of providers, not consumers, when he speaks about the First Amendment.  His constituents are Time Warner Cable, Cox, Comcast, Charter, and the other NCTA members, namely big cable companies.  In his view, any regulation or interference in how providers decide to deliver service is a potential violation of their constitutionally protected rights.  That’s a side effect of the nation’s courts recognizing that corporations have rights, too.

McSlarrow predicts a laundry list of  ‘doom and gloom’ scenarios that would befall providers if Net Neutrality was enacted:

• Net Neutrality could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service;
• Net Neutrality would prohibit ISPs and applications providers from contracting for any enhanced or prioritized delivery of that application or content to the ISPs’ customers.  Under the proposal, ISPs wouldn’t even be permitted to offer such prioritization or quality-of-service enhancements at nondiscriminatory prices, terms and conditions to anyone who wanted it.
• Net Neutrality may mean that they [content providers] can’t provide material in the enhanced form that they want.
• Net Neutrality could tell a new entrant or an existing content provider that it cannot enter into arrangements with an ISP for unique prioritization or quality of service enhancements that might enable it to enter the marketplace and have its voice heard along with those of established competitors.

McSlarrow doesn’t offer a shred of evidence to prove his more alarmist predictions, even as he demands it from those who support Net Neutrality.  The kind of unregulated, non-neutral net McSlarrow advocates already exists in places like Canada.  What you see there is what you’ll get here  — threats of usage caps unless speed throttles are permitted, arbitrary “network management” that reduces speeds for some services while “enhancing” or “exempting” certain other services (usually those partnered with the provider), and in the end usage caps -and- throttles -and- price increases.  In Canada, the story extends beyond the retail broadband market.  Wholesale broadband sold to independent ISPs comes nicely throttled and overpriced as well.

McSlarrow maintains a see no evil, hear no evil approach to his provider friends who pay his salary.  Comcast’s quiet throttling of peer to peer applicati0ns that blew up into a major scandal when the truth came out was evidently one of the “isolated incidents” he speaks about.  That’s only the nation’s largest cable operator — no reason to get bent out of shape about that.

Let’s break down McSlarrow’s concerns and read between the lines:

• Nothing about Net Neutrality impacts on a cable system’s ability to deliver its multichannel video programming.  What McSlarrow is hinting at is that cable may end up using some of the same technology that moves online video to your computer to transport television programming to your TV set.  AT&T does that today with its U-verse system.  It’s basically a fat broadband pipe over which television, telephone, and broadband service travels together over a single pair of wires.  There is no demand that broadband must usurp your cable television package.
• McSlarrow is trying to be clever when he describes “new services” that he defines as separate and distinct from Internet access service.  That usually includes “digital phone” products which providers already exempt from usage limits imposed on competitors like Vonage.  If “network management” throttles Vonage while exempting the cable system’s own phone product, is that fair?  What about the forthcoming TV Everywhere?  Could a provider throttle the speed of Hulu while exempting its own online television service?  What happens if a provider’s own service is exempted from these throttles and can deliver a higher quality picture because of that exemption?
• “Bandwidth is not infinite.”  That’s something I’ve heard providers argue for more than a year complaining about their congested networks and why they need to impose controls to “manage them.” McSlarrow wants providers to be able to “manage” those networks by selling enhanced speeds for applications that partner with the provider.  Unfortunately, because cable broadband is a shared resource, those premium enhanced speeds will consume a larger share of that resource, naturally slowing down everyone else who didn’t agree to pay. Providers will say they are not ‘intentionally’ slowing down the free lane, but that’s a distinction without a difference to the consumer who will find many of their websites slower to access.
• Today’s model asks consumers to make the ultimate choice. If they want a faster online experience, they can purchase a faster tier of service. Now providers want to change that by establishing a nice protection racket — pay us for “enhanced speeds” or your content may not reach your customers at a tolerable rate of speed.
• It’s ironic McSlarrow is suddenly crying about how unfair it is content providers can’t purchase these “enhanced services.”  That’s a change of tune from an industry that used to accuse the large number of content providers who support Net Neutrality as freeloaders trying to use “their pipes for free.”

Customer demand for higher speeds and more reliable service should be all the impetus the cable industry needs to deliver quality service, particularly considering consumers pay a lot of money for the service and remain loyal to it.

McSlarrow’s final argument is a testament to the arrogance of the cable industry on the issues that concern subscribers.  A-la-carte channel choice, equipment options and expenses, usage limits, rate increases, and service standards are all issues this industry has fought with regulators about.  What customers want is secondary, and can remain that way as long as consumer choice is kept limited.  McSlarrow’s valiant defense of the rights and freedoms of the cable industry to offer extra freedom of speech through enhanced speed-privileges to content partners is more important to him and his provider friends than the rights of customers to not have their service artificially degraded to make room for even bigger cable profits.

Apple iPhone

AT&T Mobility, the still-exclusive provider of Apple’s iPhone in the United States, is floating trial balloons about the imminent end of “unlimited data” plans for iPhone customers.  Although the company has always defined their wireless broadband service as “unlimited” even though the fine print says they really mean “up to 5GB of usage per month,” the mandatory data plan forced on iPhone customers has retained its “unlimited means unlimited” definition.  We’ve never verified a customer thrown off of AT&T’s network for using too much data on their iPhone.

AT&T has managed the iPhone as both a success story and a major challenge to its network.  People will go to all sorts of trouble to acquire and keep an iPhone, including putting up with less 3G coverage and more congestion-related dropped calls and other service problems in some larger cities.

Considering the enormous revenue boost the iPhone has brought to AT&T, customers might wonder why the company simply doesn’t pour additional money into building more network capacity.  AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega doesn’t agree.

He believes the answer isn’t going to be found in just upgrading AT&T’s network.  Instead, he wants to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme like consumption billing and do away with the “unlimited” plan altogether.

AT&T claims that three percent of smart phone customers consume 40 percent of network capacity, a substantial percentage if compared with the amount of data a mobile broadband dongle can help a laptop or netbook consume.  Of course, those numbers are AT&T’s and do not come with independent verification.

For de la Vega, consumption pricing “is inevitable.”  That allows AT&T to reduce demand on its network and manage upgrades at a level more comforting on that quarterly financial report.

“What’s driving [high] usage are things like video or audio that plays around the clock,” de la Vega said at an analysts conference. “We have to get to those customers and get them to recognize they have to change their patterns, or there are things we will do to change those patterns.”

Customers forced to ration their usage with the threat of a higher bill can work… for AT&T.

AT&T may be about to test the limits of the iPhone enthusiast.  After all, they’ve already been pushed into a two year contract for a premium-priced phone, enrolled in a high priced service plan with a compulsory data package add-on, and have to live with AT&T’s less-than-stellar coverage in several areas.  Will AT&T be able to punish its customers further by taking away their unlimited data plan and replace it with consumption billing and see if they’ll break?

We’re likely about to find out.

AT&T wants to embark on a part-conservation, part-education campaign to get customers to reduce usage.

“We need to educate the customer … We’ve got to get them to understand what represents a megabyte of data,” de la Vega says. “We’re improving all our systems to let consumers get real-time information on their data usage.”

That’s the AT&T version of the gas gauge, the usage meter that means more profits for them and less service for you.

A question customers might want to ask Apple and AT&T: If the sole provider of the iPhone in the United States is a hard luck case of an over-congested network and an inability to invest profits to expand it, perhaps it’s time that exclusive contract comes to an end, allowing other mobile providers to ‘share the burden.’  Then customers can decide if AT&T’s rationing, consumption billing, and education campaign is right for them.

Phillip "No, I won't take your word for it" Dampier

Did you realize if you are pro-Net Neutrality, you’re probably pro-piracy and a broadband hog?  That’s the new low achieved this past week by Net Neutrality opponents who are spending millions trying to protect their broadband fiefdoms from any regulation.  But even if they lose their fight to stop Net Neutrality when they find consumers won’t accept a throttled “network managed” broadband future, providers will be “forced” to control those dirty pirates and broadband hogs with usage limits and overlimit fees to help “pay for network expansion.”

It’s why Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and “consumption billing” go hand in hand.  What providers can’t profit from on one end they’ll try from another.

Longtime readers of Stop the Cap! already know how this scam works.  Canadian broadband users got stuck with both: speed throttles -and- usage caps and overlimit fees.  Assuming purposely throttled speeds are banned by Net Neutrality policies, simply under-investing in network expansion, despite the rampant profit-earning capacity broadband delivers, gets us to the same place — throttled speeds from overcongested networks and a convenient excuse to impose usage limits and other control measures to more “fairly” provide service to every customer.  Best of all, providers can pocket the overlimit fees charged to customers who exceed their allowance and train them to use less broadband with fears of more stinging penalty fees on their next bill.

Back in 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, we challenged providers to provide the raw data to prove their assertions that they needed to impose formal limits and so-called “consumption-based billing” and abandon the lucrative flat rate pricing model that earns them billions in profits every year.  Of course, they have always refused, citing “competitive reasons,” “customer privacy,” or some combination of laws that supposedly prohibits any third party analysis.  Of course, they’re only too happy to characterize usage themselves, and we’re supposed to trust them — the same people that want to use that data to justify Internet Overcharging schemes.  Independent analysis?  When broadband pigs fly!

Now, telecom analyst Benoit Felten from the Yankee Group is asking the same questions on his Fiberevolution blog and issuing a challenge:

So here’s a challenge for them: in the next few days, I will specify on this blog a standard dataset that would enable me to do an in-depth data analysis into network usage by individual users. Any telco willing to actually understand what’s happening there and to answer the question on the existence of hogs once and for all can extract that data and send it over to me, I will analyse it for free, on my spare time. All I ask is that they let me publish the results of said research (even though their names need not be mentioned if they don’t wish it to be). Of course, if I find myself to be wrong and if indeed I manage to identify users that systematically degrade the experience for other users, I will say so publicly. If, as I suspect, there are no such users, I will also say so publicly. The data will back either of these assertions.

Felton’s co-author Herman offers his assessment:

Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, the way that telcos identify the Bandwidth Hogs is not by monitoring if they cause unfair traffic congestion for other users. No, they just measure the total data downloaded per user, list the top 5% and call them hogs.

For those service providers with data caps, these are usually set around 50 Gbyte and go up to 150 Gbyte a month. This is therefore a good indication of the level of bandwidth at which you start being considered a “hog”.  But wait: 50 Gbyte a month is… 150 kbps average (0,15 Mbps), 150 Gbyte a month is 450 kbps on average. If you have a 10 Mbps link, that’s only 1,5 % or 4,5 % of its maximum advertised speed!

And that would be “hogging”?

The fact is that what most telcos call hogs are simply people who overall and on average download more than others. Blaming them for network congestion is actually an admission that telcos are uncomfortable with the ‘all you can eat’ broadband schemes that they themselves introduced on the market to get people to subscribe. In other words, the marketing push to get people to subscribe to broadband worked, but now the telcos see a missed opportunity at price discrimination…

TCP/IP is by definition an egalitarian protocol. Implemented well, it should result in an equal distribution of available bandwidth in the operator’s network between end-users; so the concept of a bandwidth hog is by definition an impossibility. An end-user can download all his access line will sustain when the network is comparatively empty, but as soon as it fills up from other users’ traffic, his own download (or upload) rate will diminish until it’s no bigger than what anyone else gets.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) has a better idea to stop Internet Overcharging: the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (HR 2902), which would ban unjustified billing schemes for broadband

The arbitrary nature of what constitutes a “hog” invalidates providers’ arguments at the outset.  Frontier defines a hog as someone who consumes more than 5GB.  Comcast sets their definition of a broadband piggy at 250GB.  The gap between the two is wide enough to allow a small planet to slip through unencumbered.

If a consumer does all of their downloading from midnight to six the following morning, are they as much of a hog on a shared cable modem network as the user watching Hulu during prime broadband usage time?  Probably not.  If a cable provider tries to force too many homes to share the same finite amount of bandwidth available in a designated area, service will slow for everyone during peak usage times.  But nobody will notice or care if customers are maxing out their connection in the middle of the night.  The appropriate answer, especially for an industry that enjoys enormous profits, is to expand their network to maintain basic quality of service at peak times.  DOCSIS 3 upgrades for cable are cost efficient, flexible and often profitable, because providers can market new, premium-priced speed tiers to those who want cutting edge service.

Instead, some providers see delaying upgrades as a better answer, enjoying the cost savings that follow implementation of usage caps, limits and other overcharging schemes which artificially limit demand and further monetize their broadband service offerings.

Unfortunately, even if Felten got responses from providers, he’ll be forced to trust the integrity of data he didn’t collect himself.  Rep. Eric Massa has a better idea.  His proposed Broadband Internet Fairness Act would ban such overcharging schemes unless providers could prove to the satisfaction of a federal agency that such pricing was warranted.  The big difference is that providing “massaged” data to Mr. Felton might be naughty, but would be downright criminal if tried with the federal government.

Shouldn’t the central lesson here be to “trust but verify?”

Frontier's latest promotion promotes one price, but you'll pay considerably more thanks to profit-padding fees, surcharges, and taxes.

Frontier Communications is mass-mailing its latest DSL promotion to customers — a year of their fastest tier DSL service for just $20.10 per month.

Labeled “FrontierFast,” the promotion claims you will get a “groundbreaking value” on their fastest Internet service for $20.10 per month, with a Price Protection Plan and a $4.50 monthly modem fee.  Frontier says you will enjoy:

• Breakthrough speeds at an unbeatable price
• Dedicated, unshared connection that won’t bog down during peak hours
• Safe, secure Frontier Mail and a personal online portal powered by Yahoo!
• Free professional installation
• A three month free-trial of Peace of Mind Hard Drive Backup and unlimited technical support.

Sounds reasonable… until you explore the terms and conditions that are attached to it.  Frontier has created a minefield of tricks and traps designed to maximize their profits and make you jump through hoops to minimize your exposure to them.

Let’s explore:

1. The $4.50 monthly modem fee makes it $24.60 for 2010.  The modem fee is nothing more than profit-padding.
2. That “Price Protection Plan” is really a nice way of saying “contract term” committing you to sticking with Frontier broadband for one year, or face a $200 early cancellation penalty.
3. That “Peace of Mind” trial is anything but if you forget to cancel before the three free months are up.  If you don’t they’ll charge you an extra $9.99 a month for the service.  Forgot to cancel during the trial?  Then pony up a $50 cancellation fee if you want out.  At least the free trial is optional.  Do yourself a favor and opt out before Frontier opts-in your wallet.
4. The promotion is available to new customers only, and you are required to bundle it with phone service -and- pay installation fees for that phone line, if you don’t have one already.
5. Service is subject to availability, speeds are not guaranteed, and your credit will be checked before you get service.
6. Taxes and surcharges apply, and they do add up fast.  You can easily add an additional $10 when combining the modem rental fee with the other fees Frontier collects for various taxing authorities.
7. Don’t forget Frontier defines an appropriate amount of usage at just 5GB per month in their Acceptable Use Policy.

Broadband service shouldn’t have to come with a minefield of fine print and profit-padding fees and surcharges.  The out-the-door price should be published so customers can truly understand what they are getting into, before exposing themselves to those steep cancellation fees.  They should also not have to worry about a ridiculous 5GB limit in Frontier’s Acceptable Use Policy.